Post by rmarks1 on Aug 26, 2019 20:10:15 GMT -5

Amid Outrage Over Rainforest Fires, Many in the Amazon Remain Defiant

RIO DE JANEIRO — Seeing the global panic over thousands of forest fires in the Amazon last week, and hearing the calls to boycott Brazilian products, Agamenon da Silva Menezes wondered if the world had gone mad.

Mr. da Silva is a farmers’ union leader in Novo Progresso, a community in a heavily deforested state in northern Brazil, and he considers the fires burning in the region a normal part of life. It’s how some farmers clear land to make a living, and a natural result of the dry season.

“We’re going to continue producing here in the Amazon and we’re going to continue feeding the world,” Mr. da Silva said in an interview. “There’s no need for all this outrage.”

In Novo Progresso, as in many parts of Brazil, there is strong support for President Jair Bolsonaro’s policy on the Amazon, which prioritizes economic development over environmental protections. These Brazilians argue that fire and deforestation are essential to keep small farmers and large ranches that export beef and soy to the world in business, and that the damage they do to the world’s largest rainforest is modest.

Further, they are indignant at what they see as a colonialist attitude by outsiders trying to decide how Brazilians should steward their own land.

Mr. Bolsonaro himself said on Monday that Brazil would not accept demands to “save the Amazon, as though we were a colony or no man’s land.” Earlier this month, a group of farmers, loggers and business owners in Novo Progresso and elsewhere announced they would be setting coordinated fires as a show of force by industries that resent enforcement of environmental laws...

Andre Pagliarini, a Brazilian historian, said that international pressure to conserve the Amazon may backfire if it stokes fears that wealthier nations want to keep the Amazon pristine to stymie Brazil’s growth — or to appropriate its wealth for themselves. That view was prevalent when the country’s military rulers set in motion an ambitious development plan for the rainforest during the 1960s and 1970s.

“All this talk of foreign collaboration in preserving the Amazon may be well-intentioned, it may be genuine, but it touches a raw nerve in Brazil: the notion that wealthier foreigners want to chip away at Brazil’s authority over the Amazon,” said Mr. Pagliarini, who will be lecturing at Dartmouth College next fall.

Post by mcans on Aug 27, 2019 11:55:42 GMT -5

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."

Post by rmarks1 on Aug 27, 2019 16:49:09 GMT -5

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."

What you haven't done though is show that the above post is actually an Argumentum ad Populum.

The article actually says that a lot of Brazilians are angry because they think that citizens of other nations are telling them how to live their lives. That's a fact, not an argument. Those Brazilians ARE angry.

Post by mcans on Aug 28, 2019 4:44:01 GMT -5

What you haven't done though is show that the above post is actually an Argumentum ad Populum.

The article actually says that a lot of Brazilians are angry because they think that citizens of other nations are telling them how to live their lives. That's a fact, not an argument. Those Brazilians ARE angry.

Post by rmarks1 on Aug 28, 2019 11:45:19 GMT -5

What you haven't done though is show that the above post is actually an Argumentum ad Populum.

The article actually says that a lot of Brazilians are angry because they think that citizens of other nations are telling them how to live their lives. That's a fact, not an argument. Those Brazilians ARE angry.

Bob

The article also doesn't give any sort of support for that claim.

Wrong. Right at the top there is a quote from a leader of the Farmer's Union. A Union leader normally wouldn't come out and say something that wasn't supported by a majority of the union members.

Once again, this article is from the New York Times, a liberal newspaper.

Post by mcans on Sept 3, 2019 18:04:46 GMT -5

I guess you don't consider the indigenous people of the Amazon people of color then?

A number of groups representing the Amazonian indigenous peoples declared an environmental and humanitarian emergency on Thursday in an open letter. They are calling on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to the United Nations to take action as the violent fires threaten their people with what the letter calls “extinction.” They blame both Bolsonaro and Bolivian President Evo Morales, whose portion of the Amazon is also ablaze. Morales, at least, has authorized firefighters and firefighting aircraft to stop the fires, but the groups are denouncing the president for his failure to protect the indigenous people of Bolivia. Bolsnaro said on Friday he may mobilize the army to fight the fires.

These fires aren’t a surprise timing-wise. Every year around this time, the forest fires grow in intensity and severity as farmers prepare for the next harvest season. The dry season, or fire season, runs from August to February though fires can burn at any time in the region. Since January, the number of forest fires in Brazil has already increased by 84 percent compared to the same time frame last year.

“This is a bit scary because we are just in the beginning of the season,” Ane Alencar, the science director of Amazon Environmental Research Institute, who has been analyzing satellite imagery of the fires, told Earther.

“The deforestation that we’ve been able to document on demarcated indigenous lands has already started,” Pearshouse told Earther. “In the wet season, they were already intruding and cutting down forests in indigenous lands.”

Post by rmarks1 on Sept 3, 2019 18:17:45 GMT -5

I guess you don't consider the indigenous people of the Amazon people of color then?

A number of groups representing the Amazonian indigenous peoples declared an environmental and humanitarian emergency on Thursday in an open letter. They are calling on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to the United Nations to take action as the violent fires threaten their people with what the letter calls “extinction.” They blame both Bolsonaro and Bolivian President Evo Morales, whose portion of the Amazon is also ablaze. Morales, at least, has authorized firefighters and firefighting aircraft to stop the fires, but the groups are denouncing the president for his failure to protect the indigenous people of Bolivia. Bolsnaro said on Friday he may mobilize the army to fight the fires.

These fires aren’t a surprise timing-wise. Every year around this time, the forest fires grow in intensity and severity as farmers prepare for the next harvest season. The dry season, or fire season, runs from August to February though fires can burn at any time in the region. Since January, the number of forest fires in Brazil has already increased by 84 percent compared to the same time frame last year.

“This is a bit scary because we are just in the beginning of the season,” Ane Alencar, the science director of Amazon Environmental Research Institute, who has been analyzing satellite imagery of the fires, told Earther.

“The deforestation that we’ve been able to document on demarcated indigenous lands has already started,” Pearshouse told Earther. “In the wet season, they were already intruding and cutting down forests in indigenous lands.”

Post by mcans on Sept 4, 2019 12:04:45 GMT -5

"I haven't seen it, therefore it's not true"

Now that's a novel claim that I haven't heard in a while! Although coming from your understanding of scientific truth and objectivity, it's not surprising. After all, Randians perceive objectively, and if you didn't perceive anything then obviously there wasn't anything there!

Then again, why is there a declaration titled "Open Letter of the Indigenous People" that was linked to in the article I posted (and which you allegedly have read)?

Post by rmarks1 on Sept 4, 2019 13:36:34 GMT -5

Have you seen any other articles supporting this one lone case? If so, please post them.

Now that's a novel claim that I haven't heard in a while! Although coming from your understanding of scientific truth and objectivity, it's not surprising. After all, Randians perceive objectively, and if you didn't perceive anything then obviously there wasn't anything there!

Ad Hominem. The fact is you have only one article in a publication that is not a mainstream source.

Then again, why is there a declaration titled "Open Letter of the Indigenous People" that was linked to in the article I posted (and which you allegedly have read)?

WOW! There was one open mentioned in one article in one publication that is not a mainstream publication. There are no other articles of a similar nature in that publications index (I already checked).

In other words, you only corroboration is an open letter that appears in the same article!

Post by debutante on Sept 4, 2019 14:26:13 GMT -5

How many trees have you personally planted in your environmentalist efforts, McCans?

As a Republican (who supposedly doesn't care about the planet) -- my last count was 42 on my personal property. We planted 8 on a business property that we subsequently sold. That's not counting donations to "memorial plantings" for deceased people.

You do know that people planting things goes on all the time. So there's not going to be a lack of trees anytime soon. We Republicans quietly go about our business without whining like the Democrats.

Now let's see if I get you straight. We are supposed to have open borders so the United States can support South America. We are supposed to discourage them for providing for themselves so that they can suck the teat of the taxpayers in the US.

Dream on, buddy!

Let them do what they need to do to survive in their own country. Or ship them off to Austria and YOU take care of them.

In the immortal words of Lady Bird,"plant a shrub or a bush--Lyndon and I will appreciate it!" (Paraphrased, but who remembers word for word after all these years!)

Post by mcans on Sept 4, 2019 18:13:43 GMT -5

Have you seen any other articles supporting this one lone case? If so, please post them.

Now that's a novel claim that I haven't heard in a while! Although coming from your understanding of scientific truth and objectivity, it's not surprising. After all, Randians perceive objectively, and if you didn't perceive anything then obviously there wasn't anything there!

Ad Hominem. The fact is you have only one article in a publication that is not a mainstream source.

So what you are saying is that all the articles you've posted from Maverick Philosopher, Reason.com, Stephen Hicks's website and other libertarian sources can be considered bullshit nonsense as they don't come from mainstream sources?